BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom home building expert Fairfield Connecticut low-income housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction cost estimating expert witnessFairfield Connecticut expert witnesses fenestrationFairfield Connecticut construction project management expert witnessFairfield Connecticut building code expert witnessFairfield Connecticut architectural engineering expert witnessFairfield Connecticut OSHA expert witness constructionFairfield Connecticut building envelope expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Building Expert Builders Information
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Connecticut Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: Case law precedent


    Building Expert Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Fairfield Connecticut

    License required for electrical and plumbing trades. No state license for general contracting, however, must register with the State.


    Building Expert Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Home Builders & Remo Assn of Fairfield Co
    Local # 0780
    433 Meadow St
    Fairfield, CT 06824

    Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert 10/ 10

    Builders Association of Eastern Connecticut
    Local # 0740
    20 Hartford Rd Suite 18
    Salem, CT 06420

    Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of New Haven Co
    Local # 0720
    2189 Silas Deane Highway
    Rocky Hill, CT 06067

    Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Hartford Cty Inc
    Local # 0755
    2189 Silas Deane Hwy
    Rocky Hill, CT 06067

    Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of NW Connecticut
    Local # 0710
    110 Brook St
    Torrington, CT 06790

    Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Connecticut (State)
    Local # 0700
    3 Regency Dr Ste 204
    Bloomfield, CT 06002

    Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert 10/ 10


    Building Expert News and Information
    For Fairfield Connecticut


    U.S. Homebuilder Confidence Rises Most in Almost a Year

    Home Building Mergers and Acquisitions 2014 Predictions

    Federal Public Works Construction Collection Remedies: The Miller Act Payment Bond Claim

    Challenging a Termination for Default

    Massive Fire Destroys Building, Firefighters Rescue Construction Worker

    How Mushrooms Can Be Used To Make Particle Board Less Toxic

    Litigation Counsel of America Honors Partner Victor Anderson with Peter Perlman Award

    Court of Appeal Holds That Higher-Tiered Party on Construction Project Can be Held Liable for Intentional Interference with Contract

    Industry News: New Partner at Burdman Law Group

    Cameron Kalunian to Speak at Casualty Construction Defect Seminar

    Getting U.S to Zero Carbon Will Take a $2.5 Trillion Investment by 2030

    Arizona Court of Appeals Decision in $8.475 Million Construction Defect Class Action Suit

    The Texas Supreme Court Limits the Use of the Economic Loss Rule

    Balfour Taps Qinetiq’s Quinn as new CEO to Revamp Builder

    City of Sacramento Approves Kings NBA Financing Plan

    Students for Fair Admissions: Shaking the Foundations of EEOC Programs and M/WBE Requirements

    Federal Court Denies Summary Judgment in Leaky Condo Conversion

    Atlanta Office Wins Defense Verdict For Property Manager On Claims By Vendor, Cross-Claims By Property Owner

    Court of Appeals Rules that HOA Lien is not Spurious, Despite Claim that Annexation was Invalid

    Job Growth Seen as Good News for North Carolina Housing Market

    Illinois Town Sues over Construction Defects at Police Station

    Illinois Supreme Court Holds that Constructions Defects May Constitute “Property Damage” Caused By An “Occurrence” Under Standard CGL Policy, Overruling Prior Appellate Court Precedent

    Navigating the Construction Burrito: OCIP Policies in California’s Construction Defect Cases

    Safety, Technology Combine to Change the Construction Conversation

    AI in Construction: What Does It Mean for Our Contractors?

    Georgia Local Government Drainage Liability: Nuisance and Trespass

    Massachusetts Affordable Homes Act Provides New Opportunities for Owners, Developers, and Contractors

    National Demand Increases for Apartments, Refuting Calls for Construction Defect Immunity in Colorado

    Restoring the USS Alabama: Surety Lessons From an 80-Year-Old Battleship

    War-Torn Ukraine Looks to Europe’s Green Plans for Reconstruction Ideas

    More Regulations for Federal Contractors

    Claims for Negligence? Duty to Defend Triggered

    Fourth Circuit Finds Insurer Reservation of Rights Letters Inadequate to Preserve Coverage Defenses Under South Carolina Law

    Utah Supreme Court Allows Citizens to Block Real Estate Development Project by Voter Referendum

    Palo Alto Considers Fines for Stalled Construction Projects

    Construction Defect Coverage Barred Under Business Risk Exclusion in Colorado

    Manhattan Gets First Crowdfunded Condos

    San Diego: Compromise Reached in Fee Increases for Affordable Housing

    Downtown Sacramento Building Riddled with Defects

    Colorado Senate Bill 13-052 Dies in Committee

    Let the 90-Day Countdown Begin

    Court Throws Wet Blanket On Prime Contractor's Attorneys' Fees Request In Prompt Payment Case

    Zoning Hearing Notice Addressed by Georgia Appeals Court

    Chinese Lead $92 Billion of U.S. Home Sales to Foreigners

    Fraud, the VCPA and Construction Contracts

    Construction Industry Groups Challenge DOL’s New DBRA Regulations

    Colorado Senate Revives Construction Defects Reform Bill

    New Executive Orders Expedite the Need for Contractors to Go Green

    Ninth Circuit Reverses Grant of Summary Judgment to Insurer For Fortuitous Loss

    Macron Visits Notre Dame 2 Years After Devastating Fire
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Fairfield's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    One Way Arbitration Provisions are Enforceable in Virginia

    October 07, 2019 —
    Here at Construction Law Musings, I’ve discussed arbitration clauses (pros and cons) as well as the fact that in our fair Commonwealth, contracts are enforced as written (for better or worse). A case out of the Eastern District of Virginia takes both of these observations and uses them to make it’s decision. In United States ex rel. Harbor Constr. Co. v. T.H.R. Enters., the Newport News Division of the Eastern District of Virginia federal court considered the following provision and it’s enforceability:
    At CONTRACTOR’s sole election, any and all disputes arising in any way or related in any way or manner to this Agreement may be decided by mediation, arbitration or other alternative dispute resolution proceedings as chosen by CONTRACTOR…. The remedy shall be SUBCONTRACTOR’s sole and exclusive remedy in lieu of any claim against CONTRACTOR’s bonding company pursuant to the terms of any bond or any other procedure or law, regardless of the outcome of the claim. The parties further agree that all disputes under this Subcontract shall be determined and interpreted pursuant to the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia….
    This provision was the crux of the argument made by T. H. R., the Defendant, in making a motion to dismiss or stay the lawsuit for payment filed by Harbor Construction. As background, Harbor Construction contracted with T. H. R. to perform work at Langley Air Force Base. Alleging non-payment of approximately $250,000.00, Harbor filed a complaint with three counts, one under the Federal Miller Act, one for breach of contract, and a third for unjust enrichment. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    New York’s Highest Court Reverses Lower Court Ruling That Imposed Erroneous Timeliness Requirement For Disclaimers of Coverage

    June 18, 2014 —
    On June 10, 2014, the New York Court of Appeals (the state’s highest court) issued a unanimous decision in KeySpan Gas East Corp. v. Munich Reinsurance America, Inc. (No. 110, June 10, 2014), reversing a lower court decision which had erroneously imposed on insurers a duty to disclaim coverage for property damage claims as soon as possible or risk waiving their coverage defenses. White and Williams represented one of the insurance company defendants in the action. The case involved an action against three excess insurers for insurance coverage for underlying environmental claims arising from Manufactured Gas Plant sites. Upon receiving notice of the underlying claims, the three insurers reserved their rights to deny coverage on various grounds, including late notice of an occurrence, pending an investigation. The insurers ultimately denied coverage on the basis of late notice several years later based on information developed in discovery in the litigation. The policyholder/plaintiff KeySpan argued that the insurers had unreasonably delayed in issuing their disclaimers and that there was a triable issue of fact on whether such a delay amounted to a waiver of the late notice defense. Reprinted courtesy of Robert F. Walsh, White and Williams LLP and Paul A. Briganti, White and Williams LLP Mr. Walsh may be contacted at walshr@whiteandwilliams.com; Mr. Briganti may be contacted at brigantip@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Wood Product Rotting in New Energy Efficient Homes

    January 13, 2014 —
    Brad Pitt’s Make It Right Foundation may be filing a suit against TimberSIL, a wood manufacturer, as reported by WRAL. The foundation built 100 new homes in the 9th Ward of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, and used the TimberSIL wood in 30 of the homes for decks and stairs. Make It Right spokeswoman Taylor Royle told Richard Thompson of WRAL that they chose TimberSIL because of the absence of chemicals, which will allow the wood to be mulched and composted after it has served its purpose. However, Royle claimed that the wood has begun to rot “despite being guaranteed for 40 years,” according to WRAL. She further alleged that the manufacturer failed to respond to any of the foundation’s attempts to discuss reimbursement of their costs under the forty year product warranty. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Blueprint for Change: How the Construction Industry Should Respond to the FTC’s Ban on Noncompetes

    May 13, 2024 —
    In a groundbreaking move aimed at fostering fair competition and empowering workers, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a final rule last week to ban noncompete agreements nationwide. This ruling may carry profound implications for the construction industry, prompting construction businesses to reassess their practices and ensure compliance while maintaining competitiveness. Let’s explore how construction companies, large and small, can navigate this regulatory shift effectively. Noncompete clauses have long been a staple in employment contracts within the construction sector, often used to protect proprietary information and retain skilled talent. However, the FTC’s ban on noncompetes demands a reevaluation of these practices. Employers must recognize the potential consequences of noncompliance, including legal repercussions and reputational damage, and take proactive steps to adapt to the new regulatory landscape. Communications with Employees The FTC rule requires employers to provide a form notice of non-enforcement to all present and former employees subject to an unexpired noncompete provisions. However, given the immediate legal challenges to the FTC’s rule and the fact that the 120-day compliance window has not yet begun, there is no reason to take immediate action or begin notifying employees. Instead, business owners should wait for at least 60 days before taking concrete action in response to the rule to see if any court temporarily enjoins the effectiveness of the rule. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Matthew DeVries, Burr & Forman LLP
    Mr. DeVries may be contacted at mdevries@burr.com

    Construction Contract Language and Insurance Coverage Must Be Consistent

    July 30, 2015 —
    How often do you review both the additional insured language in the contract and the insurance policy provided by a subcontractor? My guess is, unless the project has gone off the rails, NEVER. Well, perhaps you should to make absolutely sure the extent of the subcontractor’s insurance obligations and whether those obligations are being fulfilled. This point was recently addressed in a recent DRI article analyzing the Deepwater Horizon/BP lawsuit. My partner, Anne Marie O’Brien, also blogged on this a few months ago. As you will recall, Transocean’s Deepwater Horizon oil-drilling rig exploded, killing 11 workers, and polluted the Gulf of Mexico. BP demanded that Transocean’s insurer pay for the loss. Transocean’s insurer said no, and the litigation ensued, in state court, federal court, and the Texas Supreme Court. It was quite an odyssey of litigation. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
    Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

    Construction and Contract Issues Blamed for Problems at Anchorage Port

    August 27, 2013 —
    A third-party audit of the construction at the Port of Anchorage has found fault with the design provided by the engineers. In response, PND, the engineering firm involved, has claimed that it was not their design, but faulty construction of it that lead to an interruption in the construction project. Separately, the Office of the Inspector General has called into question how MARAD, the agency which oversaw the port construction, handled the planning and contracts for the project. Control of the project has been taken over by the Municipality of Anchorage, and they have called into question PND’s open cell sheet pile design and PND’s design of the dock infrastructure. Simpson, Gumpertz and Heger reviewed the design, comparing it to a design provided by CH2M Hill, and found that the PND design was inadequate. A contract was subsequently awarded to CH2M Hill. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Insurance Law Alert: California Supreme Court Limits Advertising Injury Coverage for Disparagement

    June 18, 2014 —
    In Hartford Casualty Ins. v. Swift Distribution (No. S207172, filed 6/12/14), the California Supreme Court affirmed a 2012 appeals court holding that there is no advertising injury coverage on a theory of trade disparagement if the competitor's advertisements do not expressly refer to the plaintiff's product and do not disparage the plaintiff's product or business. In doing so, the Supreme Court expressly disapproved Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. Charlotte Russe Holding, Inc. (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 969 ("Charlotte Russe"), which held that coverage could be triggered for "implied disparagement" by allegations that a retailer's heavy discounts on a manufacturer's premium apparel suggest to consumers that the manufacturer's products are of inferior quality. In Hartford v. Swift the plaintiff, Dahl, held a patent for the "Multi-Cart," a collapsible cart that could be manipulated into different configurations. When Dahl's competitor Ultimate began marketing the "Ulti-Cart," Dahl sued alleging that Ultimate impermissibly manufactured, marketed, and sold the Ulti-Cart, which infringed patents and trademarks for Multi-Cart and diluted Dahl's trademark. Dahl alleged patent and trademark infringement, unfair competition, dilution of a famous mark, and misleading advertising arising from Ultimate's sale of Ulti-Carts. However, the advertisements for Ulti-Cart did not name the Multi-Cart, Dahl, or any other products beside the Ulti-Cart. Reprinted courtesy of Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com; Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Traub Lieberman Partners Ryan Jones and Scot Samis Obtain Affirmation of Final Summary Judgment

    February 28, 2022 —
    Traub Lieberman Partners Ryan Jones and Scot Samis recently obtained affirmation of final summary judgment in favor of a windstorm and general insurance provider (“Insurer”) in the Florida First District Court of Appeal. The Appellant, a restoration service provider (“Restoration Service”), provided emergency mitigation services in the wake of hurricane damage to a residential home that was covered by an insurance policy issued by the Insurer. The Restoration Service invoiced the Insurer and, following an investigation, the Insurer paid a portion of the invoiced amount and invoked the policy’s appraisal clause to resolve the dispute over the difference. The Restoration Service brought suit against the Insurer, arguing that the appraisal process did not apply to mitigation services. The Insurer countered that it was entitled to resolve the claim by appraisal and, following arguments, the Court determined that the appraisal provision applied to mitigation services. Reprinted courtesy of C. Ryan Jones, Traub Lieberman and Scot E. Samis, Traub Lieberman Mr. Jones may be contacted at rjones@tlsslaw.com Mr. Samis may be contacted at ssamis@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of